1) It could be argued that the CA Constitution now internally contradicts itself. I'm not sure, however, whether this would be resolved in state or federal court.
2) The best route for a SCOTUS challenge is probably through the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment. Thus far, SCOTUS has been willing to extend "suspect class" status (i.e., status that makes a law that categorizes on that basis suspect, and therefore deserving of greater judicial scrutiny) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause#Suspect_classes) to racial minorities (leading to, among other decisions, Loving v. Virginia, which overturned miscegenation statutes in 16 states), but has not been willing to extend suspect class status to sexual orientations. Once Obama gets the opportunity to appoint some Supreme Court justices, that might change.
3) Another, slightly weirder way of going about might be, of all things, the Commerce Clause. Quite a few out-of-state gay couples traveled to California to get married. Can this be considered interstate commerce? If so, then Congress and/or SCOTUS can get involved.
4) Somewhat relating to (3), I want to see every gay couple whose marriage is annulled demanding their marriage license fees back, and taking the state to court if they're refused.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2008-11-05 08:06 pm (UTC)1) It could be argued that the CA Constitution now internally contradicts itself. I'm not sure, however, whether this would be resolved in state or federal court.
2) The best route for a SCOTUS challenge is probably through the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment. Thus far, SCOTUS has been willing to extend "suspect class" status (i.e., status that makes a law that categorizes on that basis suspect, and therefore deserving of greater judicial scrutiny) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause#Suspect_classes) to racial minorities (leading to, among other decisions, Loving v. Virginia, which overturned miscegenation statutes in 16 states), but has not been willing to extend suspect class status to sexual orientations. Once Obama gets the opportunity to appoint some Supreme Court justices, that might change.
3) Another, slightly weirder way of going about might be, of all things, the Commerce Clause. Quite a few out-of-state gay couples traveled to California to get married. Can this be considered interstate commerce? If so, then Congress and/or SCOTUS can get involved.
4) Somewhat relating to (3), I want to see every gay couple whose marriage is annulled demanding their marriage license fees back, and taking the state to court if they're refused.